Graduate Student Experiences of Sexism and Gender Microaggressions

PHYSICAL REVIEW PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH 12, 020119 (2016)

Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions

Ramón S. Barthelemy Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland

Melinda McCormick Department of Sociology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008, USA

Charles Henderson Department of Physics and Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008, USA (Received 13 January 2015; published 1 August 2016) [This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Gender in Physics.] Sexism occurs when men are believed to be superior to women, and is thought to be one of the reasons for women’s underrepresentation in physics and astronomy. The issue of sexism in physics and astronomy has not been thoroughly explored in the physics education literature and there is currently no clear language for discussing sexism in the field. This article seeks to begin a conversation on sexism in physics and astronomy and offer a starting point for language to discuss sexism in research groups and departments. Interviews with 21 women in graduate physics and astronomy programs are analyzed for their individual experiences of sexism. Although a subset of women did not report experiencing sexual discrimination, the majority experienced subtle insults and slights known as microaggressions. Other participants also experienced more traditional hostile sexism in the form of sexual harassment, gender role stereotypes, and overt discouragement. These results indicate the existence of sexism in the current culture of physics and astronomy, as well as the importance departments must put on eliminating it and educating students about sexism and microaggressions.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020119

I. INTRODUCTION physics. This article attempts to start a scholastic dialogue on sexism, or gender discrimination, in physics by docu- Current numbers suggest that women in physics only menting the experiences of 21 women in graduate physics comprise about 20% of all undergraduate and graduate and astronomy programs, while also drawing on the students and 14% of faculty [1–3]. These numbers can vary broader literature to provide a language with which to by subfield [1,4,5], but the overall physics average remains discuss these issues. small. This low representation has been the focus of many The following literature review is comprised of three prior studies. These research efforts have documented sections. The first describes research on the culture of gender differences in undergraduate achievement and physics and how women fit, the second describes research sought to remedy them [6–8], focused on the work-life on sexism more broadly, and the third describes research on balance of women with children [9,10], and studied the a specific more subtle form of sexism known as experiences of women in physics who hold multiple microaggressions. underrepresented characteristics [11]. The work has primarily emphasized women’s experiences as undergraduate II. BACKGROUND students [12–15], with fewer articles tackling the issues of women in graduate programs [16–19]. A. The culture of physics Though issues of chilly climates, discrimination, and The natural sciences have largely been absent in direct gendered interactions are beginning to be discussed in the studies of sexism, with only a few studies looking at these – literature [20 23], no direct efforts have attempted to issues in academic medicine [24,25] and field research demonstrate a language to discuss or identify sexism in [26]. Physics offers a productive starting point for this work, not only because of its very low numbers of women, but also due to a uniquely gendered culture which has been described in the literature [20,21,27,28]. Physics has also Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distri- been described as a field that is particularly challenged in bution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and observing its own social influences, as argued by Harding the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. [28], and may benefit from a careful dissection:

2469-9896=16=12(2)=020119(14) 020119-1 Published by the American Physical Society RAMÓN S. BARTHELEMY et al. PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016)

Their [physics’] nonsocial subject matter and the such as high heels and dresses that were seen as being paradigmatic status of their methods appear to preclude antithetical to the physics community [22]. This means that critical reflection on social influences on their concep- for women to participate in physics, they must have an tual systems; indeed, prevalent dogma holds that it is the awareness of how they present themselves as “woman” in virtue of modern science to make such reflection order to be able to assume the characteristics of “physicist.” unnecessary [p. 34]. Of course, this means that men, too, must strive to meet these ideal characteristics. The difference is that women are In addition to the work of philosophers (e.g., Sandra assumed to innately lack these characteristics, while men Harding), rigorous social science has also documented the are assumed to innately hold them. culture of physics and its roots in a masculine design [27]. What impacts do any of these musings have on the actual Traweek [27] lived on site at large high energy laboratories process of becoming a physicist, and do they really play a across the world observing physicists, attending research role in the overall low representation of women in the field? meetings, interviewing faculty, staff, students, and more. In A way to answer and understand these immediate concerns her work she found a community of people who described “ ” is to look for empirical evidence that women are, in fact, themselves as having a culture of no culture. The treated differently in academic physics. If women are physicists claimed that social interactions and influences actually viewed differently than men, on average, then it did not pervade into their work and professional decisions. may have a significant influence on their careers [30–34]. What Traweek [27] found, however, was a community of Although no empirical work has looked specifically at intense competition and limited resources that were often the treatment of women within physics, work has looked at distributed on the basis of biased decisions and social academia and science overall. Research over the last decade connections. She found a people who saw dress clothes as has found career-altering biases against women’s success in being a sign of someone who is not doing enough physics, academia ranging from the bachelor’s to faculty levels for they spent too much time on their physical selves. From [30–34]. Wenneras and Wold [30] jump started this con- these examples, amongst the many in the book, it is clear versation with their study of postdoctoral fellowship that a culture did exist. There indeed was a community of applications to the Swedish Medical Research Council. people that held similar practices and beliefs; it just Although this study is dated, it is important to consider in happened to be unrecognized and unacknowledged. the context of the studies that followed it. These researchers If social interactions impact who does the science, then studied rated parameters of scientific competency, quality of the culture and community do have an impact on the proposed research, and relevance of research, and found that knowledge creation. Even in the presence of these glaring women were ranked lower, on average, in every parameter. subjectivities, Traweek [27] encountered a work force that The researchers took a look at the scientific competency saw itself as purely objective. They saw physics as the measure (which was independent of the proposed research) pinnacle of rationality, empty of emotion, and void of to see if women actually were less competent. human influence. These traits, then, of course, become the By looking at the applicant’s success based on publica- hallmarks of what a scientist looks like. In and of tions in top tier journals and paper citations, they found that themselves, these traits may not be problematic, but in women who had the same publication record and academic view of the stereotypical descriptions of men and women, impact as men were scored lower on scientific competency. such descriptions may imperil women’s participation in the In fact, for a woman to be given the same competency score field. Keller [29] noted: as a man, she had to have three extra publications in a prestigious journal such as Science or Nature [30].In [There is a] deeply rooted popular mythology that casts similar studies, women scientists have also been docu- objectivity, reason, and mind as male, and subjectivity, mented to receive less supportive letters of recommenda- feeling, and nature as female. In this division of emo- tional and intellectual labor, women have been the tion when applying to faculty positions than men [33] and guarantors and protectors of the personal, the emo- have been less likely to be hired into a hypothetical tenure tional, the particular, whereas science—the province track position when compared to men with identical par excellence of the impersonal, the rational, and the curriculum vitae [34]. general—has been the preserve of men [29] (pp. 6–7). In more recent research, gender biases have also been shown to impact Ph.D. graduates looking for jobs in If women are seen as contrary to science–particularly the academia and undergraduates in search of graduate mentors “fundamental” and “objective” field of physics—then they [32]. Hypothetical applicants to a laboratory position were may be immediately seen by the gatekeepers of science and hired more often, deemed as more competent, and sug- community members as being unfit. Modern research on gested to be stronger candidates for mentoring if the gender issues in physics has argued this point. Work by hypothetical applicant had a male name rather than a Gonsalves [22] showed how women in the field of physics female name [32]. Last, in a study of over 6500 faculty had to ensure that they were not “girly,” and not wear things sampled from 259 U.S. doctoral programs, researchers

020119-2 GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN PHYSICS AND … PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016) found that emails regarding research opportunities were One response found in the research is that women will self- significantly more likely to be ignored if the email came silence as part of a gendered stereotype around proper from a student with a name that signaled that they were female communications in relationships [41]. Therefore, female or nonwhite [31]. when confronted with sexist behavior, women are more From these studies, it is clear that women are systemati- likely to silence themselves versus respond to the sexist cally treated differently in academia and science disciplines. behavior directed toward them [41]. This self-silencing in An additional notable result is that, in all of these studies, the face of sexist events has been shown to cause additional women academics had the same biases against women as did psychological distress to women [39]. men. So this problem is not just one of representation, but one Another study showed that experience of sexist events of cultural impressions and biases. Most of these differences led to increased symptoms of premenstrual syndrome may have been unconscious and unintentional biases perpe- (PMS), depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and trated by the study participants. If such inequities are as general psychiatric and physical symptoms [40]. Berg widespread as suggested by these articles, then it would not [37] found a correlation between experiences of everyday be overreaching to assume that direct mistreatment in the sexism and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which form of sexism may also be present. To begin this con- is a significant mental health diagnosis [37]. versation, we will start with a definition of sexism and Additionally, Dardenne, Dumont, and Bollier [38] found exploration of the ways that it can manifest. that sexism had a negative impact upon women’s performance, in part because women’s experience of sexism B. Sexism “created a mindset of preoccupation, self-doubt (including ” To familiarize the reader, we will give an overall some anxiety), and decreased self-esteem (p. 775) [38]. discussion of sexism followed by a look at a specific These “mental intrusions” caused women to underperform, subcategory known as microaggressions. Sex discrimina- even at gender-typed activities that should have been tion is discrimination that happens based upon a person’s skewed in their favor. sex or gender, whether perceived or real. Klonoff and Research related directly to the presence of women in Landrine [35] identified certain types of sexist discrimi- STEM fields has found that gender stereotypes around nation as “sexist events” (p. 441) [35], which they view as math abilities and proper roles for females have an impact “gender specific negative life events, that is, as gender upon women’s choices of fields of study, which may also specific stressors… which happen to women because they impact their entry into and persistence through these fields are women” (p. 441, emphasis in original). Klonoff and [43]. Early in their educational process, girls learn the Landrine hypothesized that sexist events have a great stereotypical message that boys are better than girls in impact upon women because “sexist events are inherently math, and the girls begin to lose confidence in their abilities demeaning, degrading, and highly personal; they are [43]. As they mature, they are also exposed to gender attacks upon and negative responses to something essential expectations that girls are supposed to become wives and about the self that cannot be changed: being a woman” mothers and take care of their families and homes. These (p. 442). The data presented by Klonoff and Landrine show messages are often perceived as being incompatible with that sex discrimination and its experience are “common to pursuing careers in STEM fields [43]. almost all women” (p. 447), and these sexist events range Further research in STEM fields has also begun to from such things as hearing people make sexist or degrad- explore sexism. In the field of medicine, gender discrimi- ing jokes to being treated unfairly due to one’ssexin nation against women has been demonstrated at both the classroom or work situations. For the purposes of this student [25] and faculty [24] levels. In the Carr et al. [24] paper, sex discrimination and sexism will be used inter- study, about half of all women reported experiencing changeably. Although sexism can and does impact women, harassment as compared to only a handful of men. More men, and persons with other gender identities and expres- recently, researchers have explored the harassment expe- sions, this review will focus more broadly on gender riences of scientists in field science settings [26]. Their discrimination towards self-identified women. survey results indicated that 71% of women reported “Modern sexism is characterized by denial of personal experiencing harassment in the field as compared to bias and prejudice toward women, a general conscious belief 41% of men. They also found that 26% of women reported in equality of the sexes, but unconscious attitudes that foster assaults against them as compared to only 6% of men. nonsupport for programs and legislation helpful to women,” These experiences primarily occurred while the participants according to Sue [36] (p. 168). Modern sexism operates in were trainees and were arguably at the most vulnerable largely unconscious ways due to false belief systems that are points in their careers [26]. common today, such as the idea that “discrimination against Hostile sexism is defined as overt discrimination women is a thing of the past” (p. 168). against women, which may include sexual harassment. Sexism can have various consequences for women, An example of hostile sexism would be making sexual affecting their quality of life and well being [35,37–42]. advances toward a co-worker or believing that a female

020119-3 RAMÓN S. BARTHELEMY et al. PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016) co-worker should not be in the workplace because of her TABLE I. Gendered experiences. gender [44,45]. Although these overt forms of sexism are Hostile problematic and must be dealt with, scholars are also Positive None Microaggression sexism arguing that small day-to-day inequities must be Janet X X addressed in concert with these larger issues. Daily Joan X slights, insults, and unconscious sexist actions are known Joni X Physics Marie X as microaggressions. Microaggressions are subtle forms Nancy X X of discrimination that are often socially engrained and Olivia X unconscious. An example of a gender microaggression Stevie X X ’ Susie X would be not listening to a woman s idea but then Taylor X X* responding to the same idea from a man, or not thinking Tina X to initiate a collaborative project with a woman [36].The Tori X following section will explore this more pervasive form of sexism. Annie X Barbra X Bishi X X C. Microaggressions Astronomy Cyndi X Janis X Sue [36] has identified that although conscious and Kate X deliberate acts of sexism have “seemingly decreased,” Melissa X X they continue in the form of “subtle and unintentional Pat X X ” Paula X expressions of sexism he calls gender microaggressions Sarah X (p. 11). Sue defines microaggressions as “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership (e.g., people of color, women, or LGBTs [lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans- discuss them can be met with heated disavowals, in part ” because the harm from microaggressions is perceived as gender]) (p. 24). Although these microaggressions are “ ” often overlooked or forgiven as unintentional, gender minimal by the often unconscious perpetrators. This microaggressions have been found to impair performance creates psychological dilemmas for those attempting to in multiple settings by negatively affecting women’s quality respond to microaggressions, in part because they are unsure of life [36]. Gender microaggressions act upon women in of the motives of the person who committed the micro- several ways, by reiterating the social view that men are aggression. This uncertainty around microaggressions leads more valued than women, by reinforcing traditional stereo- to a Catch-22, as the victims are also uncertain how to types about proper gender roles, and by contributing to respond to the perceived microaggression, or feel that the violence toward women by objectifying and sexualizing response is already too late. Additionally, there is some fear them [36]. that the response will not have an impact, or may have an Sue and Capodilupo [46] have identified several micro- unintended impact in the form of repercussions. Finally, the “ — aggressive themes which have emerged from research: victim of a microaggression may deny experiential reality ” (a) sexual objectification; (b) second-class citizenship; engaging in self-deception by believing it did not happen (c) use of sexist language; (d) assumption of inferiority; [36] (p. 56). (e) restrictive gender roles; (f) denial of the reality of As compared to hostile sexism, microaggressions are sexism; (g) invisibility; and (h) sexist humor jokes (p. 70) particularly difficult to isolate, confront, and resolve. Thus, (Table I). These microaggressive messages can be deliv- it is important to pursue research to explore these kinds of ered verbally through direct or indirect comments, non- experiences of women in physics and astronomy and build verbally or behaviorally through body language or constructive ways to prevent and address them. The study physical actions, and environmentally through physical below explores the gendered experiences of women in both surroundings. These microaggressive messages are often graduate physics and astronomy. “delivered through educational texts, mass media, institu- tional norms, and cultural scripts that are not necessarily III. METHODOLOGY overtly sexist, but communicate hidden messages that may be internalized by both perpetrator and victim” A. Research question (p. 164) [36]. The research question used to guide this work was “How Furthermore, due to the subtlety and often ambiguous can we understand the gendered experiences described by nature of microaggressions, the perceived targets often these women through the frameworks of microaggressions question themselves about whether or not the incident was and hostile sexism?” The experiences that were categorized motivated by gender bias. The messages communicated by from these women were both from a specific interview microaggressions are subtle but powerful, and attempts to question about their gendered experiences and from other

020119-4 GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN PHYSICS AND … PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016) personal stories described throughout the entirety of the positive or negative experiences. Participants, though, often interview, which included or referenced gender. discussed gendered experiences in other parts of the interviews. For example, some women, when discussing their B. Theoretical framework experiences with other students, would reference gender in The theoretical framework used in this study is Feminist terms of their classmates, or interactions with their class- Standpoint Theory (FST) [47,48]. FST stems from the mates or peers in terms of study groups. These other Marxist philosophical belief that those in power have a mentions of gender were part of a natural flow of discussion significantly different viewpoint of social structures and about their experiences within the educational setting and realities than those not in power [48]. Consequently, were not prompted by the research question. Because of the seekers of knowledge should focus on creating under- specific references to gender, these experiences were also standing from the perspective of those who are oppressed, included in the analysis. and thus be able to see things from the perspective of a Data analysis began as soon as the first interview was person within a system and a person who is not advantaged conducted. Interviews were read and reread while con- by the system. FST uses this foundation to value the stantly comparing them to one another [49]. The first and perspective of women’s lives and assumes fidelity and second authors would meet weekly after reviewing one ’ truth from their perspective and experiences. FST was participant s interview and coding them independently. chosen to view women’s lives as the central point for the Codes were used to describe specific concrete experiences discovery of knowledge about the process of an education such as Research Experience as an Undergraduate or in graduate physics and astronomy Mentoring from Postdoc. The first and second authors This is an important foundation for both data collection would discuss their coding, what they found, and how the and analysis. First, it demands that data are collected and codes could be combined to form greater meaning, or presented from the viewpoint of women’s lives. Great rather, themes. These themes were discussed between the caution has to be taken in the process of conducting first and second authors and were used to build an under- interviews to ensure participants are not led to responses standing of how these participants navigated their pathways from questioning cues and have the autonomy to guide the through graduate programs. conversation as they see fit and bring up experiences and The consensus view of coding would then be inputted stories important to them. The use of FST in this study into a digital software package to create an archived record. guided the researchers to design open-ended prompts and After this process, the coding and themes would be conduct all interviews as participant-guided conversations. presented and discussed with the third author who advised Second, FST helped the analysis by making the first and in the analysis process. In all, 169 codes were applied 841 second authors continually ensure that the results were times and resulted in 17 themes. In this paper we will grounded in participant experiences and told through their discuss the theme of Gendered Experiences. This theme voices (i.e., direct quotes). In the process of data analysis, the was comprised of many codes, such as Being ignored by first and second authors used their own standpoints as a male other students and Restricted from laboratory equipment, physics education researcher and a female in the field of and consists of answers to the particular question related to sociology. Together they brought different lived perspec- gendered experiences and any other remarks by the tives that helped inform their analysis. Last, since FST participants that referred to gendered experiences. argues that women’s experiences must be seen as their truth, When conducting preliminary analysis on the gendered the researchers did not question women’s experiences or experiences theme, we noted that some participants shared interpret them in ways not presented by the women stories of incidents of hostile sexism. Many other incidents themselves. shared by participants could be classified as microaggressions. As such, we chose to use the two frameworks to C. Data collection and analysis explain the findings. In order to apply these frameworks, both authors read and reread the gendered experiences data In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted by and coded the incidents as either microaggressions or the first author and were used to collect data. The interviews hostile sexism. In cases of disagreement, the authors would were collaborative in nature and conversational in form. continue a discussion until consensus was achieved. At They centered around prompts such as, “Tell me about the times, this included coding some experiences under more pathway that lead you to physics (astronomy).” Further than one category, which will be further addressed below. probing questions were used, such as, “Tell me more about your relationship with the professors in your classroom.” This publication will focus on participant responses to one 1. Researchers prompt: “How do you feel your experience has been The theoretical framework choice for this work, FST, different because you are a woman?” This question was also impacts the personal reflections of the researchers on designed to open up a conversation about their gendered their research process. Each one of us came to this work experiences without leading them to talk about either with his or her own standpoint that had to be accounted for

020119-5 RAMÓN S. BARTHELEMY et al. PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016) in the research process. Author one conducted all of the IV. RESULTS interviews and did not share a gender identity with the The results section will be divided into three main participants. When the first author recruited participants, he sections based on the participants’ experiences with sexism made the intentions of the research clear and included a link or gender microaggressions: (i) those who reported no to his website so each potential participant could know who gendered experiences; (ii) those who reported experiencing he was and be aware of his overall research goals. Each what can best be described as microaggressions; and participant also had the opportunity to ask questions before (iii) those who reported experiences which were overtly and after the interviews about the work, the author’s goals, hostile sexism. Table I lists all the participants by field and and how their anonymous stories would be used. indicates the form of sexism they reported. Participants In line with FST, the first author made sure to frame all could be listed in multiple categories, based upon their questions about the participant’s lives without guiding them reported experiences. For example, in Table I, Taylor is to specific answers. Although he did not share a gender listed under both “none” and “microaggression.” identity with the participants, he did experience under- This is because in Taylor’s initial response, she reported graduate and graduate physics programs as an under- not having any gendered experiences. However, in other represented person in the field, which gave him some parts of her narrative, she reported an incident that is coded insight into women’s unique experiences. However, he is as a microaggression (see below). not a woman and cannot fully understand their standpoint. Consequently, the second author was invited into the research process. She came to the research process with A. No gendered experiences the perspective of a single-mother graduate student in a In our data, some women (5=21) reported they had not sociology program. She also is a licensed social worker and experienced differential treatment due to their gender. holds a degree in psychology. Her standpoint allowed her to When asked about their personal gendered experiences, reflect on the experiences of women and mothers in higher some participants reported never having them, and in the education as well as bring a unique academic perspective. case of two participants, being a woman was seen as Between the first and second authors, they could look at advantageous, which we noted as “positive” in Table I. the research data and check each other’s bias. For example, Bishi, who was in astronomy, liked that her voice was the second author could better inform the first author about different from her male colleagues’ on the phone; she felt it challenges met by women and the first author could better made her stand out. Pat (also in astronomy) reported that inform the second author about the challenges specific to being a woman gave her access to resources she may have graduate physics and astronomy programs. The third author not had otherwise: brought a different standpoint to this process, acting as an expert adviser on research in physics education to ensure …being a woman in physics/astro has actually helped strength of research and determine how the project added to me…I have actually benefited from programs aimed at the physics education research community. reaching out to women in science…–Pat (Astronomy) By participating in a women-in-science program, Pat had D. Participants and recruitment the opportunity to do undergraduate research and travel to remote telescope locations to collect data. Another partici- Participants in this study met three criteria: (i) gender pant, Marie (physics) described never having been deterred identify as a woman; (ii) were in pursuit of a Ph.D. in by men in physics: physics, astronomy, or astrophysics; and (iii) passed their qualifying examination or equivalent. Students were I grew up thinking of course women can do whatever recruited from major research universities that are highly men can do…and then I realized oh, that’s because I ranked and respected in the physics and astronomy com- already have [a] role model.–Marie (physics) munities. Recruitment letters were sent out to persons identified from online graduate student lists, by contacting Marie’s mother was a single parent who held an research group leaders, and by sending invitations to women advanced STEM degree. Marie saw her mother as an in physics and astronomy groups. Additionally, at least 57 example that women can succeed at anything. She alluded individuals were sent a recruitment email as well as the email to the fact that having such a role model may have been list invitations. In total, 21 interviews with women in their why she was not impacted by gender throughout her later stages of graduate education were conducted. The education in physics. participants were predominantly White and came from Taylor (physics) added nuance to the conversation homes with mostly educated parents living middle or upper around gendered experiences, as seen in Table I. middle class lives. Further details about participants will not Although Taylor felt that she had not been treated differ- be revealed in order to protect their anonymity. All names ently because of her gender, she did share that she believed presented in this study are pseudonyms. such treatment happened:

020119-6 GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN PHYSICS AND … PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016)

I think most people interact with you a little differently subtheme is followed by a definition and an example from when you are a woman, whether they mean to or not— the participants in this study. Microaggressions in this they just make different assumptions about your abilities analysis include both direct incidents and cultural expect- and interests…Has anyone ever asked you if you know ations that act as microaggressions, such as the feeling of how to use a wrench?–Taylor (physics) having to dress in a masculine manner to fit into the culture of physics. Many of these microaggressions could be ’ Taylor s view of gendered experiences was complicated. categorized in multiple subthemes, as we saw above with ’ From Taylor s standpoint, she did not feel she was treated the example of Taylor. Table II defines the subthemes and differently, even though she stated that she believes that gives an example from our data which most closely differential treatment happens. She also shared, however, matches the subtheme. that she had some educational experience with such As a way of elucidating how the gendered experiences of gendered treatment in her undergraduate experience, when our participants fit within the framework of microaggres- someone asked her about using a wrench. The comment sions, we present each area, along with examples which we about the wrench could be coded as two different micro- felt fit the subthemes below. aggressions: “assumption of inferiority,” which refers to women’s inherent inability to perform tasks, or “restrictive 1. Sexual objectification gender roles,” which assumes that women’s roles preclude the use of tools. The first area of gender microaggressions identified by Sue [36] is sexual objectification. Three of our participants addressed this directly, and all of these examples focus on B. Microaggressions the women’s presentation of themselves and their aware- Microaggressions were present in many (16=21) of the ness of being viewed as objects: narratives of the participants. Following the work of Sue et al. [45] on gender microaggresions, the data below have I regularly wonder about appropriate work attire, since been organized into the same subthemes. In Table II the being good-looking as well as female is often associated

TABLE II. Gendered subthemes for microaggressions N ¼ 16=21 reporting.

Subtheme Definition Example from participant data Sexual objectification Reducing women to their physical appearance “[I] worry that men may want to collaborate with or assuming their bodies should be controlled me only because they are sexually interested, not and commodified by men because they respect my intellect or teaching style.” Joan, physics Second-class citizenship Treated as a lesser person or group; Belief that Yes, um, it was hard as an undergrad, um, to be the women should not have same access to only girl in the classroom because I felt so resources and opportunities as men conspicuous… that might have been part of why I was constantly questioning whether I belonged there. Paula, astronomy Sexist language Language that infers superiority of men “lady physics” Tori, physics Assumption of inferiority Assumption of women’s inherent inability to do “Like what is that… protective feeling that men certain tasks have of women in the workforce? They don’t expect as much from them, or like, give them easier tasks.” Olivia, physics Restrictive gender roles Belief that women must play certain roles “My place in the lab can at times feel uncomfortable.…. I am basically the lab secretary.” Janet, physics Denial of reality of sexism Not believing that sexism exists “I felt they got a little confrontational, like why do you need this women in physics group?” Tori, physics Invisibility Not including or recognizing women in the “It almost feels like you don’t, belong, like you’re workplace or world not um, like you’re an accessory to the conversation or you’re not like one of the guys.” Barbra, astronomy Sexist jokes Crude jokes about women, rape, domestic “[An] international student asks why women in the violence US are called ‘chicks.’ People begin to give him direct answers, but he interrupts and says, ‘I think it is because you like chickens for their legs. Not their brains.’” Joan, physics

020119-7 RAMÓN S. BARTHELEMY et al. PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016)

with not being intelligent. I therefore choose my ward- students (the general population, not the ones that I robe so that I do not look “overly attractive,” since I work with directly), interact with me differently because want to be taken seriously by my peers.–Joan (physics) I am a woman.–Stevie (physics) Joan also discusses how this impacts her confidence: Olivia talks of having a “different experience” than men in the field. “Like what is that, you know like that protective … my worry that men may want to collaborate with me feeling that men have of women in the workforce? They only because they are sexually interested, not because don’t expect as much from them, or like, give them easier they respect my intellect or teaching style, which means tasks.” This example clearly belongs in the category of that my confidence is lower than it would be if I didn’t second-class citizenship, as the underlying message is that have this worry.–Joan (physics) women are not equal to the tasks required of physicists. Joan describes “needing to constantly prove myself.” Kate discusses a similar experience in which she is This example addresses the pressures of being under- concerned with being taken seriously and takes measures to represented in the field and having to constantly prove vary her appearance to appear more masculine or her own worth, since, as a female, she is assumed to be a professional: lesser person in the field. I don’t really need glasses but I have glasses and I’ll like put them on and like, pull my hair back if I wanna be 3. The use of sexist language taken more seriously if I’m giving a talk, if I want to be The Use of Sexist Language was the least reported more professional.–Kate (astronomy) microaggression in our data, with only two participants mentioning examples. Tori gives a particularly strong Barbra, on the other hand, feels like her gender and youth example of this, when she shares a comment she has heard contribute to the number of people who attend her poster about her participation in “lady physics,” a phrase used to presentations: describe her research area. This statement infers that there are two fields of physics—physics and “lady physics.” This At conferences I feel like I get a lot of attention at my is sexist language, because it infers the superiority of men ’ posters because, I don t know, I feel like people want to over women, and infers that the “lady physics” are less than come talk to the friendly young girl and maybe they physics in general. ’ – don t want to talk to some guy. Barbra (astronomy) Joan shared an example of the language she heard from a These women’s stories show an awareness of their classmate, which can be categorized both as sexist lan- “ ” “ gendered performances and how those can impact them guage ( chicks ) and as a sexist joke ( you like chickens ” being viewed as professionals in the field. Some of these for their legs. Not their brains ): quotations directly refer to the possibility of sexual objectification, while others allude to it, such as Kate’s example. [An] international student asks why women in the US ‘ ’ One of the descriptors used by Sue [36] in describing are called chicks. People begin to give him direct “ sexual objectification includes the idea that a female’s body answers, but he interrupts and says, I think it is or appearance is for “men’s enjoyment or pleasure” (p. 34). because you like chickens for their legs. Not their ’ brains.” Everyone laughs (some with some trepidation) These women s concerns seem to be related to how they … feel they need to manage their presentation of themselves in and looks at me to see my reaction. [I] felt quite singled out and embarrassed, in addition to feeling like I order to be perceived as serious and intelligent and to be was somehow expected to defend myself, in addition to received or perceived as peers. brushing it off.–Joan (physics) ’ 2. Second-class citizenship Joan s example also includes her perceptions of the event and how it made her feel. The event singles her out as In our analysis, 10 interviewees reported experiences female, which in this case is denoted as inferior, and also that we coded under the microaggression Second-class comes with pressure for her to respond. This is a good Citizenship, which infers that women are less as a group, or example of how microaggressions work on those at whom that they should not have the same access to resources as they are aimed. She is demeaned and at the same time is men. Stevie mentioned the feeling of “missing out on ” expected to respond by either defending herself or agreeing something important because of her gender: that it was not insulting. You know, I guess it’s different in this field just because there are so many men. Sometimes you wonder if you 4. Assumption of inferiority are missing out on something important just because Ten of our participants shared about the microaggression you are a woman. And I can tell sometimes that the grad Assumption of Inferiority. The following excerpts show

020119-8 GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN PHYSICS AND … PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016) different ways in which this message was conveyed to the male peers regarding her desire to participate in a women women. Tori shares that “in this group, I gotta, you know, in physics group. prove that I can hang in and make it here.” Janet shared ways in which the message of inferiority was conveyed to her: “I felt they got a little confrontational, like why do you need this woman in physics group?”–Tori (physics) I feel, especially recently, that I am not listened to within my group. This is mostly by my peers (my adviser tends Joan also shared comments that she had heard to do a better job). A lot of my suggestions are brushed from peers: off. If, later, they turned out to be correct, people forget “ ’ ’ that I ever made them. … [In]another situation I told the If you didn t get a scholarship, you didn t work hard ’ grad student under me that he should consider a certain enough and therefore don t deserve to get extra time to ” factor in trying to make sense of his data. He said no and study for quals. (That was a personally directed “ ignored me. When the other grad student/post doc challenge). Maybe the reason women get paid less ’ ”“ suggested it, he was open to it right away.–Janet than men is that they don t work as hard. There are ‘ ’ ” (physics) many cases of discrimination that are total bullshit. ’ Janet s input was ignored. The underlying message of 7. Invisibility this is that her input is not valuable due to her status as a female. This example, however, could also easily be Nine participants reported this microaggression, and it classified as invisibility, since she feels that she is ignored has been alluded to in several examples above, where and unrecognized. Additionally, many examples of this participants spoke about not being heard or listened to by ’ category also overlap with those in the category Second- their peers due to their gender. Barbra s description, below, class Citizenship. The examples given in these two cat- sums up much of what the participants discussed in their egories were often coded in both, due to their similarity, as narratives: assumptions of inferiority and second-class citizenship often go together and may be difficult to disentangle. How do you make your voice heard is a little bit tough. This is a weakness of using Sue’s [36] microaggression The whole program feels like a(n) old boys club some- framework in this way, and this will be addressed below. times. I mean, I go to conference dinners or um colloquium dinners and I’ll be the only woman most of the time and, (pause) yeah. Uh, it, it almost feels like 5. Restrictive gender roles you don’t, belong, like you’re not um, like you’re an Twelve of our participants reported restrictive gender accessory to the conversation or you’re not like one of role microaggressions, but Joan’s example sums them up the guys.–Barbra (astronomy) quite well: 8. Sexist jokes It is exhausting and I feel that I must refute every idiotic claim produced to avoid being challenged or disre- This microaggression was present in only two narratives. spected for my gender! Exact claims include “Women Joan, however, shared a very blatant example: are worse at spatial cognition than men.”“Men are ”… …there have been, uh, situations with a past group member obviously stronger than women. there are many … more.–Joan (physics) that made some very inappropriate comments and jokes a joke about date rape and a joke about domestic Joan perceives these comments as sexist, and at the same violence.… it was a problem. I talked to my advisor about time, they also uphold societal beliefs about gender roles. it…nothing was ever done about it.–Joan (physics) Stevie discussed three different male colleagues who “didn’t think women should be in science,” one of whom The comment and the response, or lack of response, from refused to talk with her. Melissa shared about a male the advisor, were problematic for this participant. The fact “ ’ that such comments can be made without consequence says colleague who told her that women can t do science “ ” because they should be … taking care of babies.” The something about the environment in which the joke can message from these examples is that women do not belong be made. For women who have experienced domestic in the field, as their presence there is in direct conflict with violence or rape, such talk may lead the women to feel their gender roles as females. unsafe in the environment, and a lack of response to a woman’s reports of such talk will only increase that feeling. As discussed earlier in this section, there were 6. Denial of the reality of sexism experiences shared by our participants could be placed Only two of our participants reported examples of this in multiple categories. In his own definition of “assumption microaggression. Tori experienced some hostility from of inferiority,” Sue [36] discusses women feeling invisible,

020119-9 RAMÓN S. BARTHELEMY et al. PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016) unimportant, and less informed than their male colleagues Melissa’s feeling of frustration lead to her silence. She (p. 172). Likewise, he includes telling sexist jokes under the only told one fellow student about this experience. Against category of sexual objectification (p. 170). Clearly, there is her wishes, this student reported the matter and resolution much overlap between these descriptive categories, which was found at the hands of a female professor. Melissa was is a limitation of the use of this framework. However, this scheduled away from the student making these comments lack of distinct divisions does not warrant giving up the and he was reprimanded. Stevie, however, found no such framework, since it has great power in terms of explaining support when she discussed the sexism she experienced how small, often unconscious, behaviors can work to with her advisor. convey sexist messages to women. Instead, we may posit Stevie’s advisor was largely absent and the lab was that sexist messages are often very complex and may student-run. When Stevie attempted to work on experi- contain multiple messages for women. ments, a male colleague informed her that a woman’s place Overall, this analysis found that gendered experiences was not in the lab, it was at home. He made this point clear which could be classified as microaggressions were to Stevie and prevented her progress: reported by a large proportion of the (16=21) women in this study (76%). Furthermore, it was common for women He’s [another graduate student] not too fond of women, to report experiencing many different types of microag- in general. And he made a point to make sure I gressions, versus only reporting singular incidents. This understood that … if I asked for something like, I want high reporting of microaggressions seems especially prob- time to do experiment stuff …. He wouldn’t give it to lematic from the perspective of reducing sexism in physics me.–Stevie (physics) and astronomy departments. Stevie sought support from her research advisor and the graduate student advisor, but she found none. She even- C. Hostile sexism tually switched labs against both of her advisors’ advice For five of the participants (Janet, Nancy, and Stevie in and found a research advisor who did not do research in her physics and Melissa and Cyndi in astronomy), hostile areas of interest, but who had a track record of supporting sexism was an unfortunate reality in their educational women advisees. pathways. Their experiences moved well beyond micro- The last participant to be discussed in this section is aggressions, because they were directed towards them as Nancy. Nancy’s experience stands above all the other gendered individuals and could have had devastating participants’ because of the severity of the sexism she consequences for their careers. In the cases of Nancy experienced and the silence she was met with from the and Stevie their careers did continue, but were significantly physics faculty when she sought assistance. Nancy was altered. Cyndi encountered hostile sexism the earliest in her assigned a teaching assistant (TA) in her graduate advanced career, while still in high school: physics coursewho became infatuated with her. She told him she was not interested, but he did not listen. He eventually Many of the boys in the [AP physics] class expressed became aggressive with her and did not relent in his interest in engineering. When it got around to me, I attraction. Eventually he acted out in violence toward her: responded that I wanted to major in physics. The teacher raised an eyebrow and said “Oh, so you’re going to be a He was obsessive, violent towards objects, I just wanted waitress”…–Cyndi (astronomy) to get away from him…he punched holes in the wall because I happened to be in the building…He was angry For Cyndi, this overt discouragement did not deter her; at me…he didn’t respond to ‘leave me alone’…–Nancy she was already enrolled in community college and had (physics) planned to pursue her education in physics (and eventually astronomy) further. Nancy explained that she was only confident in reporting The rest of the participants all experienced hostile sexism his behavior because she was a top student. Although the as graduate students in pursuit of their research. Janet had faculty said they would remove him as her TA, he was to endure sexist jokes about women, and Melissa and actually placed again as her TA the following semester and Stevie struggled with graduate students who did not believe subsequently removed when she voiced her concerns again. women had a place in the lab. Melissa explained: Her harasser was never reprimanded for his actions and was merely sent to counseling. Nancy no longer felt safe in her I was observing with someone …and [he was] just going department and physically left the university to finish her on about why women can’t do science because they dissertation remotely at a large national laboratory in should be…taking care of babies and [I] should be another country. thinking about having babies soon… It was…frustrating. In the cases of all of these women, four attempted to find Like I literally, like, couldn’t even deal with this person… resolution by reporting their experiences to superiors. I just feel so disrespected…–Melissa (astronomy) However, with only one exception (Melissa), these reports

020119-10 GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN PHYSICS AND … PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016) were met with deaf ears. Janet, Stevie, and Nancy had to Within the environment of physics these women also find their own ways to survive and avoid their harassers. struggled with the actual spaces in which they did their work. Although Janet just continued in her lab avoiding her male For Janet, in particular, her relationship with the physical colleagues as best she could, Nancy and Stevie relocated to space in which to conduct physics was mediated. The space, different labs to extract themselves from the situations in to her, was not one of just science. It was one where she had which they felt unsafe due to hostile sexism. to clean, organize, and do tasks the men in her group were never assigned. For Melissa and Stevie this was also true. When they attempted to conduct research at a telescope and V. DISCUSSION national lab, respectively, male graduate students attempted The results section demonstrated the negative gendered to block their access to equipment and data. For Nancy, her experiences of many women in both physics and astronomy, physical safety was in jeopardy whenever she entered the and answered the guiding research question by showing that physics building. The literal physical space of physics and these experiences could be understood using the frameworks astronomy for these women was changed because of the of microaggressions and hostile sexism. Interestingly, no actions of men. The physical space became one of non- differences between the two fields were visible. Although science-related work, confrontation, and bodily danger. astronomy has a much larger representation of women The physical space also manifested disadvantages for compared to physics, the same gendered experiences were these women’s psychic interactions. When these women described in both fields. What is clear from the data, wanted to share ideas, participate fully in the research however, is that the overall environment within physics process or just be present during discussions, their actions and astronomy pervasively and subtly impacts women, at were challenged. These women were not heard in the least for the majority of participants. This environment research groups when voicing thoughts, endured sexist seems unsurprising when considering the previously comments and jokes, and, in some cases, were reminded of described culture of physics, which has been found to the gender roles they should hold. Additionally, at times alienate and discourage women’s participation [27,28,50], they were explicitly discouraged from pursuing their goals as they are not seen as being inherently part of the field. No in science. In Whitten et al.’s [13] article on supporting single aspect of these women’s experiences affected their women in physics, one of their major recommendations persistence or caused them to leave the field. Rather, an was that the space be perceived as safe for the women. In accumulation of disadvantage from many small incidents this way, the departments in which many of these women led to the departure of some of the participants from their were involved failed to meet the standard. fields of study. Unfortunately, many of these incidents were This environment and culture these women experienced unacknowledged by the perpetrators and community, and were indicative of the environments and cultures described were ignored when brought to the attention of administra- previously [22,27,28]. The field of physics was described tion. Lastly, it is also important to mention the minority of as a masculine domain in which the presence of women participants who reported no gender microaggressions or was seen as innately antithetical to the field. This resulted in hostile sexism. In terms of creating a female-friendly challenges to women’s participation in the departments. environment [12], this is the goal for all students in these Women’s presence and potential contributions were seen as fields. fraudulent and were met with opposition through experiences of microaggressions and hostile sexism in the data provided by our participants, which leads us to wonder if A. Environment and culture of physics the culture of physics has indeed altered since the earlier The experiences described by these women combine to cultural studies [27,28]. illustrate a physical and cultural environment that is Clearly, the men (and in some cases women) may have discouraging of women’s participation in physics and not been aware of their own treatment of the participants in astronomy. The microaggressions and hostile sexism some cases, such as when their ideas were not heard or their described by these participants worked to impede their research choices were questioned. On the other hand, there participation in research, alienate their very presence in the were examples that were clearly conscious, such as fields, and discourage their persistence. The microggres- physically assaulting property when the participant was sions and hostile sexism resulted in ignoring these women’s around or directly telling her she shouldn’t be pursuing ideas, conveying a message of women as objects, and physics or astronomy but instead be at home having restricting access to laboratory equipment. These inter- children. Although these examples were not discussed actions fundamentally changed the relationship these by many participants (5=21), it is problematic that almost women had to their fields. These women were not able a quarter of our participants reported incidents of hostile to interact with physics or astronomy as full participants, sexism within their departments, especially considering but as people mediated by the role expectations and that the nature of the gender prompt in the interview was restrictions placed on them. very open-ended and that the participants were talking to a

020119-11 RAMÓN S. BARTHELEMY et al. PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016) male interviewer. The majority of the participants reported who live in the United States nor those who may leave the more subtle forms of sexism, and this is also concerning. field of physics or astronomy before passing graduate-level These experiences may not have made them quit or leave exams. Further research should seek to diversify the par- their programs outright, but over time these experiences can ticipants when possible. This may include women of color, create an accumulation of disadvantage. trans women, women with disabilities, and lesbians.

B. Accumulation of disadvantage VI. CONCLUSION The overall goal of this article was to share the gendered “Each example that I have discussed is a small thing. experiences of successful women in pursuit of their One might be tempted to dismiss concern about such educations in physics or astronomy, while also demonstrat- imbalances as making a mountain out of a molehill. But ing a language for physicists and astronomers to discuss mountains are molehills, piled one on top of another sexism in their departments. Although examples of hostile over time” (pg. 210) [51]. sexism in the form of sexual harassment and gendered stereotypes exist in this data set, the majority of the reported A single experience of a microaggression, and even in experiences were subtle, difficult to label, and may have some cases hostile sexism, most likely will not stop women been unconscious on behalf of the perpetrators. When from pursuing their goals in physics and astronomy. It is the considering sexism in one’s own research group or depart- accumulation of all of these small cuts that create a large ment, it is important to consider ways in which to mitigate wound, which endangers a woman’s success in physics and microaggressions and the differential treatment of women astronomy. Over time, if women’s ideas are constantly by both men and women. unheard, they aren’t invited to informal networking events, One way to combat microaggressions is through aware- aren’t considered for collaborations, etc., their careers will ness and education. Organizations need to provide training be impacted. Just a few less publications or grants can cost regarding gender microaggressions and sexual harassment an individual a promotion or access to continue their work. [45]. Faculty, in particular, need to be trained to be aware of Continual discouragement through subtle messaging and how they may inadvertently treat women differently and be exclusion may also make women set their goals lower, advised to ensure equal treatment. This can be done by which, over time, results in overall less achievement. making sure tasks in the lab are assigned fairly, every student Additionally, previous research has shown that the incre- has equal access to equipment and can share their ideas at in- mental effects of continuing bias against women can lead to group meetings and during experiments, and that faculty are symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder [37] and may equally available to all students [53]. Small acts such as these lead them to be increasingly vulnerable to future trauma. may help address inadvertent gender bias which affects Martell et al. [52] demonstrated that by adding small female students and thus allow fuller participation [45]. amounts of bias (as measured by differences in performance Beyond education on microaggressions, departments ratings) against women they could change a pool of people need to have a tough and vocal stance regarding their refusal who were equally men and women to be 65% men by the end to tolerate a hostile work environment toward women [45]. of an eight-tiered computer simulation [52]. Small biases Some ways to meet this goal include asking students and matter, and it may be the accumulation of small events that faculty to attend annual colloquia on sexual harassment and creates the discrepancies seen in physics and astronomy, and be made aware of both the consequences and reporting not any one cause. The first step in combating this is mechanisms in place within the university. Students, under- recognizing that modern day sexism does exist and often graduate and graduate alike, need to be strongly encouraged differs from historical examples of discrimination. to report incidents, and the department needs to have policies and procedures in place for follow up. Further, Sue [45] C. Limitations recommends accountability for maintaining a bias-free It is important to recognize the overall limitations present environment as a part of leadership positions. A no-tolerance in this study. The limited sample size and breadth of the data policy for a hostile work environment would mean that collection is an immediate constraint. However, the extent to perpetrators of hostile harassment should be dealt with which women experienced microaggressions suggests there severely, involving police when necessary, such as when it may be validity in drawing conclusions from their experi- involves physical assault, verbal harassment, and stalking. ences. An unavoidable limitation, however, is that the Through careful consideration of the kinds of sexism correlation to physics or society in general cannot be existent in the physics and astronomy communities and untangled. Further data are needed from other disciplines targeting them for education of community members, it to argue for or against the roles of physics and astronomy in may be possible to create a culture hospitable to all persons. the manifestation of these experiences. Last, the voices of Such an environment can only benefit the fields by these participants are largely from upper-class privileged ensuring the production of scientists engaged in top quality white women. They do not represent the diversity of women work.

020119-12 GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN PHYSICS AND … PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016)

[1] AIP, American Institute of Physics Statistical Research [17] C. Hollenshead, P. Soellner-Younce, and S. A. Wenzel, Center (2014), https://www.aip.org/sites/default/files/ Women graduate students in mathematics and physics: statistics/undergrad/bachdegrees‑p‑14.pdf. Reflections on success, J. Women Minorities Sci. Eng. 1, [2] P. Mulvey and S. Nicholson, Trends in Physics Ph.D.s 63 (1994). (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, 2014). [18] R. S. Barthelemy, M. L. Grunert, and C. R. Henderson, The [3] R. Ivie et al., Women Among Physics and Astronomy graduate research field choice of women in academic Faculty (American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD, physics and astronomy: A pilot study, in Proceedings of 2013). the Physics Education Research Conference (American [4] R. S. Barthelemy, C. Henderson, and M. L. Grunert, How Institute of Physics, Philadelphia, PA, 2012). did they get here?: Pathways in physics education research, [19] K. P. Dabney and R. H. Tai, Female physicist doctoral Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020107 (2013). experiences, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 25 (2013). [5] R. S. Barthelemy, B. Van Dusen, and C. Henderson, [20] A. T. Danielsson, Exploring women university physics Physics education research: A research subfield of physics students “doing gender” and “doing physics,” Gender with gender parity, J. Women Minorities Sci. Eng. (to be Educ. 24, 25 (2012). published). [21] A. T. Danielsson, Gender in physics education research: A [6] M. Lorenzo, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur, Reducing the review, in Never Mind the Gap: Gendering Science gender gap in the physics classroom, Am. J. Phys. 74, 118 in Transgressive Encounters, edited by M. Blomqvist (2006). and E. Ehnsmyr (University Printers, Uppsala, Sweden, [7] L. E. Kost-Smith, S. J. Pollock, and N. D. Finkelstein, 2010). Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: [22] A. J. Gonsalves, “Physics and the girly girl—there is a The incremental effects of a “smog of bias”, Phys. Rev. contradiction somewhere”: Doctoral students’ positioning ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020112 (2010). around discourses of gender and competence in physics, [8] L. E. Kost-Smith et al., Replicating a self-affirmation Cultural Study Sci. Educ. 9, 503 (2012). intervention to address gender differences: Successes [23] A. J. Gonsalves, Gender, and doctoral physics education: and challenges, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Are we asking the right questions, in Doctoral Education: Research Conference, edited by N. S. Rebello, P. V. Research-Based Strategies for Doctoral Students, Super- Engelhardt, and C. Singh (American Institute of Physics, visors, and Administrators, edited by L. McAlpine and C. Omaha, NE, 2011). Amundsen (2011). [9] R. Ivie and C. Tesfaye, Women in physics: A tale of limits, [24] P. L. Carr et al., Faculty perceptions of gender discrimi- Phys. Today 65, No. 2, 47 (2012). nation and sexual harassment in academic medicine, Ann. [10] M. A. Mason and E. M. Ekman, Mothers on the Fast Intern. Med. 132, 889 (2000). Track: How a New Generation Can Balance Family [25] L. Nora, M. A. McLaughlin, S. E. Fosson, T. D. Stratton, and Careers (Oxford University Press, New York, A. Murphy-Spencer, R.-M. E. Fincher, D. C. German, D. 2007). Seiden, and D. B. Witzke, Gender discrimination and [11] M. Ong, Body projects of young women of color in sexual harassment in medical education: Perspectives physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science, Soc. gained by a 14-school study, Acad. Med. 77, 1226 (2002). Probl. 52, 593 (2005). [26] K. B. H. Clancy, R. G. Nelson, J. N. Rutherford, and K. [12] B. L. Whitten, S. R. Dorato, M. L. Duncombe, P. E. Allen, Hinde, Survey of academic field experiences (safe): Train- C. A. Blaha, H. Z. Butler, K. A. Shaw, B. A. P. Taylor, and ees report harassment and assault, PLoS One 9, 0102172 B. A. Williams, What works for women in undergraduate (2014). physics and what we can learn from women’s colleges, J. [27] S. Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes (Harvard University Women Minorities Sci. Eng. 13, 37 (2007). Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988). [13] B. L. Whitten, S. R. Foster, M. L. Duncombe, P. E. Allen, [28] S. Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Cornell P. Heron, L. McCullough, K. A. Shaw, B. A. P. Taylor, and University Press, Ithaca, London, 1986). H. M. Zorn, What works? Increasing the participation by [29] F. Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science (Yale women in undergraduate physics, J. Women Minorities University Press, New Haven, 1985). Sci. Eng. 9, 20 (2003). [30] C. Wenneras and A. Wold, Nepotism and sexism in peer- [14] B. L. Whitten, S. R. Foster, M. L. Duncombe, P. E. Allen, review, Nature (London) 387, 341 (1997). P. Heron, L. McCullough, K. A. Shaw, B. A. P. Taylor, and [31] K. L. Milkman, M. Akinola, and D. Chugh, What happens H. M. Zorn, “Like a family”: What works to create friendly before? A field experiment exploring how pay and repre- and respectful student-faculty interactions, J. Women sentation diferentially shape bias on the pathway into Minorities Sci. Eng. 10, 229 (2004). organizations, Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. 100, 1678 (2015). [15] M. McCormick, R. Barthelemy, and C. Henderson, [32] C. A. Moss-Racusin, J. F. Dovidio, V. L. Brescoll, M. J. Women’s persistence in undergraduate astronomy: The Graham, and J. Handelsman, Science faculty’s subtle roles of support, interest, and capital, J. Women Minorities gender biases favor male students, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Sci. Eng. 20, 317 (2014). U.S.A. 109, 16474 (2012). [16] J. M. Curtin, G. Blake, and C. Cassagnau, The climate for [33] F. Trix and C. Psenka, Exploring the color of glass: Letters women graduate students in physics, J. Women Minorities of recommendation for female and male medical faculty, Sci. Eng. 3, 95 (1997). Discourse Soc. 14, 191 (2003).

020119-13 RAMÓN S. BARTHELEMY et al. PHYS. REV. PHYS. EDUC. RES. 12, 020119 (2016)

[34] R. E. Steinpreis, K. A. Anders, and D. Ritzke, The impact [44] M. Crawford, Transformations: Women, Gender, and of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job Psychology, 2nd ed. (McGraw Hill Companies Inc., applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical New York, NY, 2012). study, Sex Roles 41, 509 (1999). [45] D. W. Sue, C. M. Capodilupo, G. C. Torino, J. M. Bucceri, [35] E. A. Klonoff and H. Landrine, The schedule of sexist A. M. B. Holder, K. L. Nadal, and M. Esquilin, Racial events: A measure of lifetime and recent sexist discrimina- microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical tion in women’slives,Psychol. Women Q. 19, 439 (1995). practice, Am. Psychol. 62, 271 (2007). [36] D. W. Sue, Microaggressions and Marginality: Manifes- [46] D. W. Sue and C. M. Capodilupo, Racial, gender, and tation, Dynamics, and Impact (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., sexual orientation microaggressions: Implications for Hoboken, NJ, 2010). counseling and psychotherapy, in Counseling the [37] S. H. Berg, Everyday sexism and posttraumatic stress Culturally Diverse: Theory and Practice, edited by disorder in women: A correlational study, Violence Against D. W. Sue and D. Sue (John Wiley & Son, Hoboken, Women 12, 970 (2006). NJ, 2012). [38] B. Dardenne, M. Dumont, and T. Bollier, Insifious dangers [47] S. N. Hesse-Biber, Handbook of Feminist Research: of benevolent sexism: Consequence for women’s perfor- Theory and Praxis (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, mance, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93, 764 (2007). CA, 2007). [39] R. J. Hurst and D. Beesley, Perceived sexism, self- [48] S. Harding, Feminist standpoint epistemology, in The silencing, and psychological distress in college women, Gender, and Science Reader, edited by M. Lederman Sex Roles 68, 311 (2013). and I. Bartsch (Routledge, New York, NY, 2001). [40] H. Landrine, E. A. Klonoff, J. Gibbs, V. Manning, and M. [49] K. Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory (SAGE, Lund, Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender dis- Thousand Oaks, CA, 2006). crimination: An application of the schedule of sexist [50] J. Des Jardins, The Madame Curie Complex: The Hidden events, Psychol. Women Q. 19, 473 (1995). History of Women in Science (Feminist Press, New York, [41] J. K. Swim, K. M. Eyssell, E. Q. Murdoch, and M. J. 2010). Ferguson, Self-silencing to sexism, J. Soc. Issues 66, [51] V. Valian, Beyond gender schemas: Improving the 493 (2010). advancement of women in academia, NWSA Journal 16, [42] J. K. Swim, L. L. Hyers, L. L. Cohen, and M. J. Ferguson, 207 (2004). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and [52] R. Martell, D. Lane, and C. Emrich, Male-female psychological impact from three daily diary studies, J. Soc. differences: A computer simulation, Am. Psychol. 51, Issues 57, 31 (2001). 157 (1996). [43] J. M. Grossman and M. V. Proche, Perceived gender and [53] C. J. Blickenstaff, Women and science careers: racial/ethnix barriers to stem success, Urban Educ. 49, 698 Leaky pipeline or gender filter?, Gender Educ. 17, 369 (2014). (2005).

020119-14